Google+ will start allowing pseudonyms this week, but getting a pseudonym may …

More than six months after it first launched, Google+ is set to finally allow users to create accounts using pseudonyms. Google announced that it planned to do so back in October in response to complaints from the Electronic Frontier Foundation and others, who said pseudonyms are necessary to ensure freedom of expression for people in danger of retribution for speaking out on controversial topics.

On Monday, Google Product Vice President Bradley Horowitz wrote on Google+ that the company will roll out its name policy changes this week. One change is that anyone will be able to add nicknames in addition to their real names. The more significant change, however, is that Google will also let people use pseudonyms instead of a real name, but there are caveats. Horowitz indicates that the pseudonym must be established and well-known in order to qualify for a Google+ profile.

"Starting today we’re updating our policies and processes to broaden support for established pseudonyms, from +trench coat to +Madonna," Horowitz wrote. Google may flag the name that a person intends to use and ask for additional information to confirm the person's identity, including "Scanned official documentation, such as a driver’s license" or "Proof of an established identity online with a meaningful following." This would seem to raise privacy problems for those who need pseudonyms for safety reasons, but a post in Mashable says "Google will destroy all documentation you send them once the account verification process is complete."

If Google flags the name that a user intends to use, there's no guarantee the pseudonym will be approved. This is partly to prevent impersonation. "We’ll review the information and typically get back to you within a few days," Horowitz wrote. "We may also ask for further information, such as proof that you control a website you reference. While a name change is under review, your old name will continue to be displayed. For new accounts without an old name, your profile will be in a non-public, read-only state during the review. Either way, you'll be able to see the status of your review by going to your profile."

The Google+ naming policy still says you must "use your common first and last name." The policy, as written today, discusses the process for adding a nickname to an existing profile but does not mention pseudonyms. Google also recently changed its account signup process to compel more users to sign up for Google+, but attempting to create an account with an obviously fake name can prevent creation of a Google+ profile.

I've been trying convince google+ I'm a real human for over 3 months. No response from their support, no response from their 'report trouble' tool. Really looking forward to these guys controlling more of where we get our information.

I noticed a while back when I needed a temporary gmail account with a fake name, it automatically created a G+ account, and somehow the process even set up a facebook account, although I don't recall exactly how that happened. There didn't seem to be any issue with my obviously fake name, but to be honest I haven't exactly checked on the account.

I prefer to keep my real life off the Internet, mostly for privacy. And facebook is just too obnoxious and pervasive, so even if I didn't want to stay relatively anonymous, I certainly wouldn't use it. Google+ seems to be headed in that direction, too.

I am baffled. From where I sit I should think you would have to be a complete moron to use your real name on one of these sites.How the internet has changed in the last ten years. We have gone from being careful about our personal info to giving it to everyone with a search engine.[greybeard] No Good Will Come Of This![/greybeard]

Google just isn't trustworthy anymore. But then I remember their business model, and the product they are selling is the users to companies. I use Facebook, but am very careful of what I put up. With my real info not on there.

Definitely age with that, especially in this day of location aware phones that allow you, with your real life name, to upload posts and pictures to your account and have it tagged with your real life location.

I'm so glad I'm an old, ugly bloke on the internet, can't think what it could be like if I was young, vulnerable and received lots of unwanted attention.

Google had lost the plot on social media anyway, g+ is all very well but when it won't let me send an email to my contacts, you'd got to wonder

Definitely age with that, especially in this day of location aware phones that allow you, with your real life name, to upload posts and pictures to your account and have it tagged with your real life location.

I'm so glad I'm an old, ugly bloke on the internet, can't think what it could be like if I was young, vulnerable and received lots of unwanted attention.

Google had lost the plot on social media anyway, g+ is all very well but when it won't let me send an email to my contacts, you'd got to wonder

I could accept a compromise where I provide a real name and have a real name "face" on Google+, but I want an ability to clearly switch faces and names so that particular circles only see and know about me what I want. Until then both my Facebook and Google+ accounts will remain barren wastelands, and I'll stick with my separate email and IM communication methods, along with highly specific and limited group websites. I don't especially care if Google knows about my Boy Scouts troop, my goat porn, and my knitting circles*, but I don't want the groups matched up in any other ways where I might mix up the posts or a search might reveal the crossover. Google allows me gmail account names that aren't "real names", why should Google+ by default be that way? Just let me flag a particular face as a pseudonym.

* Obviously a fictitious example: I wouldn't have anything to do with the current Boy Scouts!

Google just isn't trustworthy anymore. But then I remember their business model, and the product they are selling is the users to companies. I use Facebook, but am very careful of what I put up. With my real info not on there.

Is all of Ars's readership like this?Is this the new trend or something?To be distrustful of all big corporations, distrustful of the law, of government, of anything except... yourself? Google is not asking you to trust them and you have many alternatives. If you don't like Google, change. And lastly, you assume that people out there want to steal information about you in the first place. While this might be true, I somehow doubt it.

You and much of Ars readers come across as paranoid and pessimistic. I'm really very sorry if this hurts some of your egos out there, but I simply think that everyone on Ars tries too hard to be like this. The air of cynicism is always incredibly thick on this website, as is the style of "pseudo-intelligence" inherent in much of the writing I see.

Google just isn't trustworthy anymore. But then I remember their business model, and the product they are selling is the users to companies. I use Facebook, but am very careful of what I put up. With my real info not on there.

Is all of Ars's readership like this?Is this the new trend or something?To be distrustful of all big corporations, distrustful of the law, of government, of anything except... yourself? Google is not asking you to trust them and you have many alternatives.

You and all of Ars come across as paranoid and boring. Moreover, you assume that people out there want to steal information about you in the first place.

(Disclaimer: I'm a Google fan)To be honest, people have reasons not to trust companies and governments these days. I find it silly there is so much complaining about a completely opt-in free service by a company that's actually proven itself to be trustworthy, but I completely understand the feeling.

Google is known for reasonable and relatively prompt customer support. They are occasionally capricious, and have been known to sometimes use obscure and internal rules. But in the whole, interactions with their customer support are at least average.

However, they are also known for very poor "support" regarding inquiries from their sales product as to various "problems" or "improvements." In this regard, however, they are better than most - you don't see the cattle rancher taking advice from the cows on how the slaughtering process should occur.

Remember, with Google Plus you're not the customer, you're the sales product. What you think is bad customer service is actually just confusion about who the customer really is. You're not paying for anything. You are, in fact, what other people are paying for.

It's these kind of shenanigans that really make me reconsider my use of any google services. I already quit using everything they offer except gmail. Maybe it's time to switch that as well. Anyone have any NOT evil companies for suggestions?

Google just isn't trustworthy anymore. But then I remember their business model, and the product they are selling is the users to companies. I use Facebook, but am very careful of what I put up. With my real info not on there.

Is all of Ars's readership like this?Is this the new trend or something?To be distrustful of all big corporations, distrustful of the law, of government, of anything except... yourself? Google is not asking you to trust them and you have many alternatives. If you don't like Google, change. And lastly, you assume that people out there want to steal information about you in the first place. While this might be true, I somehow doubt it.

You and much of Ars readers come across as paranoid and pessimistic. I'm really very sorry if this hurts some of your egos out there, but I simply think that everyone on Ars tries too hard to be like this. The air of cynicism is always incredibly thick on this website, as is the style of "pseudo-intelligence" inherent in much of the writing I see.

You do realize that by writing this, you are implying that you know better with your "real intelligence" while providing no evidence to support this claim? I'm glad that you can retain a lack of cynicism about some things. Just check it from time to time in order to ensure it isn't just 'head in sand' naivete(otherwise known as ignorance.)

Count me among those who wont be using G+, and doesn't use FB or trust the government any farther than I can throw them. I trust those whom I know, and have proven themselves to be trustworthy both on and offline. All others are suspect, subject to change.

You and much of Ars readers come across as paranoid and pessimistic. I'm really very sorry if this hurts some of your egos out there, but I simply think that everyone on Ars tries too hard to be like this. The air of cynicism is always incredibly thick on this website, as is the style of "pseudo-intelligence" inherent in much of the writing I see.

Why do people care about using pseudonyms on a social networking site? Do you get angry at Facebook for having the same policy?

Because there are people who have built their "brand" around a pseudonym, there are people who everyone knows them by that name and nothing else so if they were on Google+ people wouldn't recognize it.

I'm not sure exactly what Google should do here. People complained about the real name policy. They relaxed it a bit. It's not perfect, but it's better than it was, and yet even this prompts a fresh wave of criticism. At this point, I have no doubts that if they completely removed the policy tomorrow and let people use whatever damn name they wanted, people would complain that it wasn't good enough.

For me, I'll just be glad to rid myself of the space in the middle of my current g+ pseudonym, placed there to look like a semi-legitimate name. Call me easily satisfied, but I don't find everything that every company does to be personally offensive.

Google just isn't trustworthy anymore. But then I remember their business model, and the product they are selling is the users to companies. I use Facebook, but am very careful of what I put up. With my real info not on there.

Is all of Ars's readership like this?Is this the new trend or something?To be distrustful of all big corporations, distrustful of the law, of government, of anything except... yourself? Google is not asking you to trust them and you have many alternatives. If you don't like Google, change. And lastly, you assume that people out there want to steal information about you in the first place. While this might be true, I somehow doubt it.

You and much of Ars readers come across as paranoid and pessimistic. I'm really very sorry if this hurts some of your egos out there, but I simply think that everyone on Ars tries too hard to be like this. The air of cynicism is always incredibly thick on this website, as is the style of "pseudo-intelligence" inherent in much of the writing I see.

You do realize that by writing this, you are implying that you know better with your "real intelligence" while providing no evidence to support this claim? I'm glad that you can retain a lack of cynicism about some things. Just check it from time to time in order to ensure it isn't just 'head in sand' naivete(otherwise known as ignorance.)

Count me among those who wont be using G+, and doesn't use FB or trust the government any farther than I can throw them. I trust those whom I know, and have proven themselves to be trustworthy both on and offline. All others are suspect, subject to change.

Maybe you don't understand what I mean by pseudo-intelligence writing.

I'll phrase it another way. It's also called the "I try too hard to sound smart" syndrome and if you need any convincing, your post is evidence enough. Thus, I cannot "imply that I know better with my 'real intelligence'". If anything, I'm saying that I am writing "less intelligently". Maybe it's just me, but much of what people post here sounds like finely crafted soundbytes, like this one: "count me among those who doesn't use FB or trust the government any farther than I can throw them". Or the phrase "'head in the sand' naivete". The last time I heard the word "naivete" was in high school English!! Try to write your next couple of comments without sounding like you're trying to write.

I don't see the problem with G+'s real name policy. I like the idea of knowing who I'm connecting with and forcing the use of real names enhances the security of the site. I'm all for internet anonymity, but social networks aren't the right venue for anonymous interaction.

The last time I heard the word "naivete" was in high school English!! These are all clear symptoms of simply trying too hard.

IMO it's more likely a symptom of your particular friends and other acquaintances than of anything else. In my world people talk like this all the time. Granted, I have accumulated a circle of friends that can be called nothing less than a shining beacon of intellectualism, and it sounds like you haven't. That's cool and all (actually I take that back, it's pretty uncool), but try not to be a dick about things you don't like.

I prefer real names for everyone. If you want to stay private and hidden, you have no business on a social networking site. If you don't want to talk to people or be seen by people, don't go to a big party. But if you do decide to join the party, don't be a lump on a log.

I don't see what makes one name more "real" than another. If everyone calls you by your middle name, is that name not just as real? What about a nickname? If nobody other than banks and hospitals call you by your birth name, which is more real?

You do realize that by writing this, you are implying that you know better with your "real intelligence" while providing no evidence to support this claim? I'm glad that you can retain a lack of cynicism about some things. Just check it from time to time in order to ensure it isn't just 'head in sand' naivete(otherwise known as ignorance.)

Count me among those who wont be using G+, and doesn't use FB or trust the government any farther than I can throw them. I trust those whom I know, and have proven themselves to be trustworthy both on and offline. All others are suspect, subject to change.

Maybe you don't understand what I mean by pseudo-intelligence writing.

I'll phrase it another way. It's also called the "I try too hard to sound smart" syndrome and if you need any convincing, your post is evidence enough. Thus, I cannot "imply that I know better with my 'real intelligence'". If anything, I'm saying that I am writing "less intelligently". Maybe it's just me, but much of what people post here sounds like finely crafted soundbytes, like this one: "count me among those who doesn't use FB or trust the government any farther than I can throw them". Or the phrase "'head in the sand' naivete". The last time I heard the word "naivete" was in high school English!! Try to write your next couple of comments without sounding like you're trying to write.

Really? You do realize that many people here work in technical fields, and are educated, trained, and paid to write like that, right? Are you suggesting they should tone down the vocabulary? If so, why? It's obvious you understand what they're saying, and I'd rather people not have to "dumb down" their natural writing style to post.

I'm not claiming that it doesn't happen, but I doubt that most people puff up their writing that way. The keyword there being "most".

Google just isn't trustworthy anymore. But then I remember their business model, and the product they are selling is the users to companies. I use Facebook, but am very careful of what I put up. With my real info not on there.

Is all of Ars's readership like this?Is this the new trend or something?To be distrustful of all big corporations, distrustful of the law, of government, of anything except... yourself? Google is not asking you to trust them and you have many alternatives.

You and all of Ars come across as paranoid and boring. Moreover, you assume that people out there want to steal information about you in the first place.

(Disclaimer: I'm a Google fan)To be honest, people have reasons not to trust companies and governments these days. I find it silly there is so much complaining about a completely opt-in free service by a company that's actually proven itself to be trustworthy, but I completely understand the feeling.

yeah, "proven", whatever....Oh, and every companies services are "opt-in" so no need to ever complain I guess.

Google just isn't trustworthy anymore. But then I remember their business model, and the product they are selling is the users to companies. I use Facebook, but am very careful of what I put up. With my real info not on there.

Facebook keeps tracking you if you're still logged in, and they used to track you even when logged out. Not sure if they still do it now. But remember that they also gather data on you when you Like something, and so on. It's not just what you post.

You do realize that by writing this, you are implying that you know better with your "real intelligence" while providing no evidence to support this claim? I'm glad that you can retain a lack of cynicism about some things. Just check it from time to time in order to ensure it isn't just 'head in sand' naivete(otherwise known as ignorance.)

Count me among those who wont be using G+, and doesn't use FB or trust the government any farther than I can throw them. I trust those whom I know, and have proven themselves to be trustworthy both on and offline. All others are suspect, subject to change.

Maybe you don't understand what I mean by pseudo-intelligence writing.

I'll phrase it another way. It's also called the "I try too hard to sound smart" syndrome and if you need any convincing, your post is evidence enough. Thus, I cannot "imply that I know better with my 'real intelligence'". If anything, I'm saying that I am writing "less intelligently". Maybe it's just me, but much of what people post here sounds like finely crafted soundbytes, like this one: "count me among those who doesn't use FB or trust the government any farther than I can throw them". Or the phrase "'head in the sand' naivete". The last time I heard the word "naivete" was in high school English!! Try to write your next couple of comments without sounding like you're trying to write.

Really? You do realize that many people here work in technical fields, and are educated, trained, and paid to write like that, right? Are you suggesting they should tone down the vocabulary? If so, why? It's obvious you understand what they're saying, and I'd rather people not have to "dumb down" their natural writing style to post.

I'm not claiming that it doesn't happen, but I doubt that most people puff up their writing that way. The keyword there being "most".

Of course most people don't write like that. But the exceptions to that are all around you on Ars. Take a good look.

Google just isn't trustworthy anymore. But then I remember their business model, and the product they are selling is the users to companies. I use Facebook, but am very careful of what I put up. With my real info not on there.

Facebook keeps tracking you if you're still logged in, and they used to track you even when logged out. Not sure if they still do it now. But remember that they also gather data on you when you Like something, and so on. It's not just what you post.

+ not to mention if these things where in place with facebook maybe an account in my name would not be opened at least 3-4 times a year, that I then have to fill out multiple forms with facebook, attach a scanned image of my license, and explain that I do not have a facebook account, etc, etc...

During this process you get no response from them... To top it off 3 times this has happened facebook then in turn just moved the account over to my email address, thus activated a facebook profile in my name without my permission...

I'm not claiming that it doesn't happen, but I doubt that most people puff up their writing that way. The keyword there being "most".

Of course most people don't write like that. But the exceptions to that are all around you on Ars. Take a good look.

You misunderstood. When I said "most people", I meant "most people here". Ars attracts people who write technically, and for very obvious reasons. Yes, exceptions can be found, and I'm sure a few people puff up their comments. However, people who write technically for a living will naturally have the same tone in their comments. It's not hard to figure out.

It is ironic that just at the time when the public needs social sites allowing multiple identities (to address a whole range of human roles), the companies providing these services are restricting identities. And restricting it to a single identity, your "real" one.

Ultimately, this must fail. Why you should provide a real name to a site before you really understand what it does and how it works for you is beyond reprehensible. And the inability (by design?) to be able to clean up and delete your information if you choose to leave is disgusting.

Anyone using these "free and entirely opt-in" services get what they pay and click for.

These companies are supposed to be employing smart people. They can't figure out how to deliver a social network that can use pseudonyms? Of course they could.

I guess we are fortunate that Google and Facebook weren't around during the American Revolution. Thomas Jefferson wouldn't have been able to post anything on King George's Google.

There is a fundamental right to privacy. Google and Facebook have to get over it.